referee tonight

[bobjimwilly]

Snods Shinpad wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Anyway, I've run the video through some image tracking software at work...

I can independently verify Mr Stubbs findings, as a screenshot from my military grade precision radar tracker clearly shows.

 

     

[DonnyNoel]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Plagiarism!

That was a direct and shameless copy of one of Danny Bergara's team-talks.

Could be - the striker is wearing number 5 after all!

[The Red Baron]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

DonnyNoel wrote:

danum wrote:

3 yards behind Billy - makes him the last man
I really can't see that they could have caught him with 3 yards start

As for the Forest \"penalty\" that never was, the linesman, West Stand side had a clear view and never gave it (poor decision) - however that was probably one mistake in 12 awful decisions in that game - Worst linesmans performance ever ??

3 yards behind him when the foul was made, but 10 yards behind him when Billy got the ball - suggesting they were already catching him and by the time he hits the ground their lad is past him which I bet was a factor in the refs mind. Again though - the \"last man\" statement isn't a definitive decision maker. Its never detailed in the laws of the game that last man = DOGSO. On the flip side, you can get done for DOGSO if you're in a line of 4 defenders but the referee deems not one of them would have got back to catch him. That was why I made the point about how far out the incident was.

Noel. Of course the chasing player had pulled level with Sharp by the time he hit the ground. That's because Sharp slowed down in anticipation of the hit, and then was slowed down still further BY the hit. The defender clearly made a conscious decision to take Sharp out when he realised that he wouldn't be able to make the tackle. He had to take two paces in to make that foul challenge. Had he played by the rules, and shouldered arms when he realised that he couldn't possibly make a fair challenge, Sharp would not have had to decelerate. It was the very act of committing the professional foul that slowed Sharp down.

Anyway, I've run the video through some image tracking software at work. At the moment that Sharp nudged the ball away from the defender, he was moving at 8.7m/s. The faster of the two chasing defenders was running at 9.3m/s. Sharp had 21m to reach the edge of the box and take a shot. The cover defender was 3m behind him. Sharp would have therefore taken 2.41 seconds to get to shooting position, whereas the chasing defender would have taken 2.58seconds. Or, to put it another way, at the moment that Sharp would have shot, the chasing defender would still have been 1.6m behind him.

DOGSO.

You should develop that image tracking software for use in referee training BST. You could be onto a money-spinner there.

Might also help to train linos to judge offsides much better than they do now.

As for the actual incident, I was sitting pretty much level with it in the West Stand and I was certain it was DOGSO. There was no way that the \"covering defenders\" would have got to Billy before he was one-on-one with the keeper.

People will say \"how would you feel if it was one of ours?\" Well, for a start \"one of ours\" would probably have seen red. If not, rather like the Forest penalty incident, I'd feel we'd dodged a bullet.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Actually TRB I made up that story about the image tracking. We DO have that software at work but it's a bugger to run if you've not set up the target specifically. Much as I'd love to run that Sharp incident through it, I ain't got the time.

I still reckon Sharp would have got a shot in 100 milliseconds before the chasing defender reached him like.

[Filo]

The Red Baron wrote:

As for the actual incident, I was sitting pretty much level with it in the West Stand and I was certain it was DOGSO

You must be sat somewhere near me then :-)

[Donnywolf]

Not for the first time in this thread I say from my lofty perch West Stand Half Way Line Back Row RED CARD which the plank \"bottled\" for reasons known only to him

True there were 2 defenders towards the dug out side of the pitch but IMO they would not have caught 5BS and as already raised on here the Ref cannot make allowances for slippery pitch (he may not have got off a shot) or whether the attacker is faster / slower than any defender

He just has to decide this : was the bloke doing the hacking down the last man ? Answer YES - get the cnut OFF - which he did not

[5minstogo]

But it's not a case of being the last man.  The red card is for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity.  

Which as much as I would have liked it to have been, it was not.

[DonnyNoel]

DONNYWOLF wrote:

He just has to decide this : was the bloke doing the hacking down the last man ? Answer YES - get the cnut OFF - which he did not

No he doesn't. Irrelevant of whether you think red or yellow in this - to reiterate a fact (should I capitalise? ) there is nothing mentioned in the laws of the game about a last man or a last man having to be sent off. So he doesn't \"just\" have to decide that - he will have (correctly or incorrectly) had to interpret things like, distance from the goal, direction towards the goal, players in the vicinity. The terms last man and professional foul are just media speak.

FIFA say

denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty kick

and

Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether
to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity:
• the distance between the offence and the goal
• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• the direction of the play
• the location and number of defenders
• the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick

[bobjimwilly]

Ok, let's say it shouldn't have been a red and yellow was the correct decision, what do you think about the similar tackle a few minutes later, where the ref blew on the edge of the area for a free kick, but decided not to give the defender a 2nd yellow?  

I still the think the ref was shocking

[DonnyNoel]

bobjimwilly wrote:

Ok, let's say it shouldn't have been a red and yellow was the correct decision, what do you think about the similar tackle a few minutes later, where the ref blew on the edge of the area for a free kick, but decided not to give the defender a 2nd yellow?  

I still the think the ref was shocking

Definite second yellow and I agree. All this red/yellow debate has made me forget something that infuriated me at the time - only 3 minutes injury time! If we're 1-0 up its 4 minutes minimum!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Taking those FIFA criteria 1-by-1 makes the ref's decision even less defensible


• the distance between the offence and the goal - Sharp was 20m from shooting when he was taken out but that was an absolutely CLEAR 20m. He would have got a shot in on goal. Abslutely no question whatsoever about that.
• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball 100%
• the direction of the play Towards the penalty area. At a slight angle rather than directly ahead, but if anything, that would have given Sharp a better shooting angle.
• the location and number of defenders 2 chasing, 1 directly behind Sharp. About 3m behind him, and a careful look at the video shows that he had made up virtually no ground on Sharp in the 20m or so between Sharp getting up to full speed as he entered the centre circle, and Sharp decelerating in anticipation of the hit as he exited the centre circle. A second defender was also 2-3m behind Sharp, but also 10m to the side of him. This defender was utterly irrelevant to Sharp's probability of getting a shot in.
• the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick Of course.

I can see no argument whatsoever for not issuing a red card. I thought that at the time and I think it even more having seen the video and looked at the criteria that refs are supposed to use. It was an utterly cynical and deliberate action by the defender and a bad, bad decision by the ref.

[donnyjay]

I wasn't at the game on Tuesday however, I have spent the morning painstakingly sifting through all the evidence available. (I've watched the Youtube clip on the other thread and looked at Snods Shinpad's excellent reconstruction).

I can't see any reason why Mr Sharp would not have gone on to have a shot on goal from that position.